Realism and new threats: An analysis of Israel’s …548166/FULLTEXT01.pdfRealism and new threats:...

Handledare: Daniel Silander

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCES

Realism and new threats: An analysis of Israel’s

security policy C-uppsats

Jasmin Jaziri Stenberg, 19910517-2341

VT2012

Realism and new threats: An analysis of Israel’s security policy

VT2012

1 Jasmin Jaziri Stenberg

19910517-341

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 2

1) Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1) Background ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.2) Objective ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3) Issues and presentation ......................................................................................................... 4

1.4) Previous research .................................................................................................................. 4

1.5) Theories and definitions ........................................................................................................ 5

1.6) Methods.................................................................................................................................. 7

1.7) Criticism ................................................................................................................................. 9

2. The Israeli security policy. ......................................................................................................... 10

2.1) Creation of the State of Israel ............................................................................................. 10

2.2) The old Zionism ................................................................................................................... 11

2.3) The new Zionism within the making of the latest security policy. ...................................... 13

3. Threat and terrorism start war ................................................................................................. 14

3.1) Israeli threat’s perceptions .................................................................................................. 14

3.2) The war against terrorism ................................................................................................... 15

3.3) In practice: South Lebanon 2006 ........................................................................................ 16

4. PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah a threat to Israel ......................................................................... 18

4.1) PLO ...................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2) Hamas .................................................................................................................................. 20

4.3) Hezbollah ............................................................................................................................. 21

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 23

6. Map.............................................................................................................................................. 26

7. Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 27


VT2012


19910517-341

Abstract

This essay takes a look at Israel’s security policy and the definition of threat as a

major factor in building up the security policies. The essay brings up also the problems of

having a realistic way of acting towards a more constructivist problem as it is in this case. To

understand better the constructivist context an analysis of Israel’s security policy and a

research on the roots of it is made as well as how Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO),

Hamas and Hezbollah is seen as a threat to the Israeli state security.

The aim is to look at the problem and at the basis of the foundation of the

organizations and Israel. It is from there the conclusion takes its essence. In fact what come

forward are the social structures that created the infrastructures and this phenomenon is the

root of the problem and not just the balance of power thinking of a bipolar problem. This

means that this problem might be easier to please with a more constructivist way of thinking

and of looking at the problem to be able to think of solving it.

Keywords: Security Policy, Israel, PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, Threat, Realism, Constructivism,

Palestine


VT2012


19910517-341

1) Introduction

1.1) Background

One of the most ancient problems of our world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The problem is the fear of non-existence for both Israel and Palestine, the dispute about the

boarders, and also the Israeli war against terrorism, pointed out in Palestinian territories. It is

those factors which have made it hard for each part to recognize the other one. As it was a big

discussion in the United Nations during the end of 2011, how can Palestine be a recognized

state without compromising the survival of Israel?

Israel has a long history of fight against terrorism. Already from the foundation

of the Israeli state threats have been noticed and the incorporation of a strong security policy

has been considered as given to protect the new born country. The threats have been coming

from, at the beginning, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)1. And since then a war

has been declared and held against this terrorist organization. Israel’s war against terrorism is

one of the most important aspects of the country’s security policy. In fact; it deals with armed

non-state actors with a great influence located around the Israeli boarders. For the country of

Israel, it is a major issue to keep the citizens safe, especially the ones located on the boarders.

Even though this war has been going on since the creation of the Israeli state, the threats have

expanded to several organizations, from the PLO to Hamas passing by Hezbollah in the later

years.

This situation has conducted the region not to be in real term of peace since the

late 1940’s. The area is actually characterized by a war zone in the Palestinian territories and

by two previous wars in Lebanon. At the same time, these wars have stopped, and are still

blocking, the engagement of a peace process between Israel and Palestine and the negotiations

are taking more time than it should for the population’s best.

This describes a huge issue in the Israeli way of dealing with the question. It

actually brings up to the surface a critical thinking on how the action against these

organizations should be implemented. With its realistic views on international politics, Israel

has more offensive methods to work against the threats, and this, without taking any bigger

consideration to the cultural differences. There is a realist view which stunts any kind of

1 Bickerton, Ian J., Arab-Israeli Conflict : A History. Reaktion Books, 2009, p.179


VT2012


19910517-341

constructivist thoughts around the problem. One possible problem is that the Israeli way of

protection might not work with these types of guerilla formations. This can actually give an

explanation about why the war has been going on for so long. In another way, there still is a

problem about other possibilities left to the Israeli state to protect itself from these terrorist

organizations. How can the terrorist threats been fought with more efficiency than today?

1.2) Objective

Israel is a country with a realist ideology within security policy. The state is

leading a war against terrorism to protect itself from armed non-state actors which has as main

goal to destroy the country. As the essay tries to explain how terrorism is more a

constructivist threat than a realist threat, the fail of the Israeli policy, with its fight against

terrorism, is the most interesting case to analyze. What this essay aims to do is, from the

descriptions and explanations, to put forward how terrorism is not built for a realist

international policy but for a more constructivist one.

1.3) Issues and presentation

How can a war be legitimated when it is against terrorist organizations?

In what way is the Israeli problem with terrorist organization depending more

on social structure then power balance?

To be able to think around this problem it is better to start from the security policy of

Israel to get a better understanding of what it is based on, how it works and why the state has

chosen realism as the main idea of its security policy. Later on, the thoughts are directed to

the Israeli definition of threat, how the notion is understood and used in the conducted war

against terrorism, and to explain how well this war is succeeding by taking an example of how

a confrontational military approach ends with the terrorist organizations. To finish, the three

guerilla organizations will be presented and the essay will try to explain how they can be

qualified as threats towards Israel’s national security.

1.4) Previous research

Security policy is a subject within International Relations, a scholar endorsing all

the different type of interactions of countries with outside actors, between countries or actors

with a weight in the international political scene. This means that studies of this kind are more


VT2012


19910517-341

focused on the relations between different international actors. As Peter Hough explain it, the

study of security policy can be centered between different kinds of situations, where threat is

the main factor for the studies2.

Threat is a wide notion which endorses multiple kinds of different studies. By

definition, a threat is a notion that comes to life when the security of a country is in danger.

This means that the safety of the country is endangered by an external actor. It can appear

under different forms and is not always the same. It can be a disease, as the avian flu, a

natural catastrophe, as volcanic eruptions, an economic threat, for example the economic

crisis of 2009, or a military threat coming from either states or from independent

organizations3. All of these threats are being handled depending on its particularity. A natural

catastrophe and a military threat cannot really be treated in the same way. The first one is not

possible to avoid while the second one can be avoided before the threat is even formulated.

To understand and fight the threats, there are two main opposite ideas which have

shaped this notion: realism and constructivism. Both of these international ideologies have

peculiar ways to look at security policy which do not include the other one.

1.5) Theories and definitions

Realism sees international relations as a problematic of power balance4. It is a

game of which side is going to win over the other one. It was the first overwhelming ideology.

It was the way countries actually were seeing the world: they had a bipolar view of the world,

especially during the Cold War with the battle between the USSR and the United States of

America. This estimation of power, a pillar in realism, depends on different areas, from

scientific research to the spread of the country’s culture. However this ideology looks at

threats in a way that characterizes it as legitimate to protect the country from being attacked.

The rule, in this type of security policy, is to be the strongest and to show the most power.

The key-expression being the national interest5, this shows that this kind of studies of security

policy is focused on the own state and on what should be done to protect the state and to

promote it.

2 P. Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge 2008, p. 2 3 Ibid 4 J. Gustavsson & J. Tallberg, Internationella relationer, Studentlitteratur 2008, p.36 5 P. Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge 2008, p.4


VT2012


19910517-341

On the other hand constructivism has and is continuing to shape today’s security

policy and international relations. Constructivism, also known as social constructivism, is an

ideology build on the place of the social institutions which acts on the international actors.

This is a wider way to understand the ideology because it takes in everything that builds up an

identity: the traditions, the religion, the gender, morals…6 This theory does not include a

rational state thinking in gains and losses. There are other more conceptual problems and

ideas which influence the actors and make them act in a certain way. This ideology takes in a

lot of the newer type of NGO’s with their will to influence more on the political scene as well

as lobbyism is a great user of social constructivism. The threats are with this ideology more

complex to understand and to solve. It is for a constructivist easy to find the roots of the

problem than rather finding a proper solution with it, which makes it not as much used as

realism can be used. The only threat that has been being build up by social constructions is

more or less nowadays vision of racism and xenophobia. In fact the problems are built on

cultural differences and bad integration problems. This is an internal threat towards the

democracy, as well as an external threat when such things happens to the surrounding

countries, Europe is a good example to see how xenophobia has gained room and place on the

international scene, as in the European Parliament. This can give a flashback from the 1930’s

in Germany with the raise of nationalism and anti-Semitism

Terrorism is a form of threat. It is classified as a military non-state actor threat. It

has 109 listed definitions, but there is one overshadowing the others formulated by the United

States of America, it says that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated violence

perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents usually

intended to influence an audience”7. What appears in this precise definition is that a state

cannot be categorized as terrorist as the definition limits it to “subnational groups or

clandestine agents”, which actually fits with Max Weber’s idea of a monopoly on violence of

the state8. There are different ways to look at the problem. The preferred one is the realistic

view with the concretization of the war against terrorism where countries, like the United

States, Russia and Israel have officially declared a state of war against terrorist threatening

6 J. Gustavsson & J. Tallberg, Internationella relationer, Studentlitteratur 2008, p.93 7 P. Hough, Understanding Global Security (2nd Edition), Routledge 2008, p.66 8 M. Weber, Politic as a vocation, 28/01/1919 in Munich


VT2012


19910517-341

their countries, as their policy is not to deal with terrorist9. The United States have concretized

their war with the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is based on more realistic built

views around the threat, the thinking being to destroy the enemy before the enemy destroys

one. For Israel this war has been going on for much longer, already at the foundation of the

Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and is now embracing two other organizations:

Hamas and Hezbollah. While constructivism would c enter more its idea and analysis on why

the threat is build, how it is built in terms of social structures that are forcing the terrorism as

it terrorism is always characterized by a social structure, either religion, political views or

nationalism.

1.6) Methods

This essay is mainly based on secondary sources coming from previous research

and on document analysis such as articles from newspapers and scientific articles; this is

mainly because of the difficulties of finding objective primary sources on such a sensible

subject. The sources are mainly analyzing and describing the security policy of Israel and the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it is the purpose of the study: to look at the Israeli security

policy and to understand how it does not work with the fight against terrorism which the

conflict is a result of. At the same time these are the least subjective works made on Israel and

its conflict with Palestine, as the authors have expressed a wish to remain neutral.

There are also more theoretical books, such as Understanding Global Security

by Peter Hough, which give a better understanding of the different theories and terminologies.

This gives a more interesting research and analysis on the chosen subject and refers to the

definitions given to relate each idea, which comes up during the reading of the literature, with

a specific way of acting. This book is an academic work which is there to enlighten the

different types of threat and to, in this peculiar case, make think around what type of threat it

is and how can it be explained.

As the essay is mainly based on written texts, the best way to use the material is

by analyzing it. This analysis needs to take in consideration what is meant and what is the

mayor subject of the texts being analyzed.10

From there the most interesting part is to see the

9 P. Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge 2008, p.79 10 Ibid, p.249


VT2012


19910517-341

different common points that can be find in the material, for example how the events went on

or the aspects of each one of the organizations policies.

The problem with this kind of analysis is that after the first texts, an opinion and

an image of the case is made and it gets harder to read the new texts as it is the first look taken

to the case chosen. A good example is the explanation of Hamas and PLO’s policy towards

Israel. The analysis of the charters is also influenced by the previous readings as it is, for

some books in the literature, a threat. This can lead to an aptitude more likely to understand

the charter as hostile towards Israel. At the same time, in this essay, there is a will of

objectivity in such a subjective problem so that all the different views can come together and

help to find a new perspective on the problem. That is why the documents have been

compared to the books to help and clarify the issues which come from the problems of the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A comparison can be made to try theories, to develop new theories or to

describe a problem. Here the comparison is made to describe. It does not have the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict as its main focus but the Israeli security policy and the policies of what

Israel consider a threat. This description is to increase the awareness around the several

decades’ long conflict. In fact, this essay tries to show the way of thinking of each part and to

point out what is actually making the problem endless. In other words, this description of the

different policies and policy-making has, as main goal, to explain the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict.

This essay is almost like a case-study as we take a defined region, Israel,

Palestine and Lebanon, and actually describe and analyze this particular situation. To be a

complete case-study the subject has to come forward from the aspect of the study-object’s

history11

. Studies in the field of international politics are no exception to this rule. In fact this

is one of the most efficient ways to analyze a situation as it is and to get a better

understanding of the problem, which is the major point of this essay. As it can be seen in the

essay the Israeli history is a big part of the study as it is the main reason explaining why Israel

has made the choice to have a more realist security policy.

11 A.L. George et al, Case studies and theory development in the social sciences, Belfare Center for Social and International Affairs 2005, p.67


VT2012


19910517-341

It was in this way natural to put forward the Israeli security policy first to

understand what is being studied and what views Israel has on outside relations, the chosen

type of handling with other countries and what is the major problem for the country when it

comes to security issues. From there the essay takes in considerations the Israeli way of

looking at threats and what are the main measures taken by the government to protect the

country from outside threats. To finish with an analysis of the different organizations seen as

a threat to see if this mean is legitimated or note, and in what kind of way they enter the

definition of threat.

1.7) Criticism

There are four criteria for criticism: authenticity, independence, concurrency and

tendency12

.

The authenticity of the literature in this case is dependent on the reality of the facts

and the history. The material being made by approved researchers, such as Zeev Maoz, or

doctoral student, Zeynep Civcik, the literature chosen is based on scientifically based work.

This decreases the probability of inauthenticity of the material chosen for the analysis of the

study. It is of course a matter of view on the point, but studies of the Middle-East are not so

much focused on the security policies as it is on the social and cultural problems of the region.

This can be caused by the situation of undemocratic countries established in the region which

complicates the accesses to the needed documentation to make proper studies.

For the criterion of independency the main critic that can be made towards the

essay is the fact that objectivity is hard to reach in this type of subject. The topic being linked

to one of the world’s most dividing problems, as there is two sides: the Israelis on one hand

and the Palestinians on the other one. It is a difficult task to stay objective in this kind of

subject as sometimes own opinions can come forward and play a role in the making of the

analysis and the conclusion. It is also a fact that each of the previous researchers have its own

idea and opinions on the situation and the problem which makes it even more difficult to be

completely independent from the own perception of the subject. But this criterion has other

sides, like the possibility to confirm the different stories13

as the works referred to, are made

12 P. Esaiasson, Metodpraktikan (3rd edition), Norstedts Juridik 2007,, p.314 13 Ibid, p.318


VT2012


19910517-341

by researchers which either have been in direct contact with the primary sources or leads their

work on reliable research. There is also the aspect of primary and secondary sources which

here are clarified. In fact the essay is based mainly on secondary sources, but there is a lot of

information also coming from primary sources, such as the Israeli foreign ministry website

and reports or the different charter used and analyzed for the analysis of the subject.

The third criterion for criticism is the concurrency; this means how far the

information is taken from the analysis object.14

The security policy of Israel being a changing

subject, it is preferable with more modern sources that cover the historical and the present’s

policies and that points out what have been stabile so it is easier to understand the fundaments

of the security policy of Israel.

Tendency is the last aspect of criticism and it deals with the fact potentiality of the

writers to tilting the main ideas of the subject on a specific direction. This is a difficult

criterion to measure and it helps to confirm an affirmation with other sources then with just

one, which results in different sources making talking about a similar subject15

. The points of

views being personal, if the information given has similarities in the different documentations,

then the sources are reliable.

2. The Israeli security policy.

Since its creation, Israel has went through six overstate wars, two to three civil

wars and have had more than 144 crisis involving army forces with other countries16

. This can

sum up how exposed to external threat the Israeli state is. It is also a main factor to explain

why in reality their foreign policy is really centered on the policies of security, from the

creation of Israel to nowadays with different courants and ideologies focused on one main

idea: Zionism.

2.1) Creation of the State of Israel

The state of Israel is a relatively young state. It was founded after World War II

during which Hitler was planning to exterminate the Jews that he saw as a threat to the

14 Ibid, p.320 15 Ibid, 323 16 Z. Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy, 2008, p.5


VT2012


19910517-341

Arians. It was also a time where the Jews were scattered all over the world, and they were

feeling a loss of their identity and needed to have a belonging. The Diaspora and the Zionists

expressed the need of the Jewish community to be gathered in one and unique state. For them,

to be helped to deal with their identity issues, and for the international scene to dramatically

reduce the risks of experiencing another Holocaust.

But the creation of the state was done in a period of crisis; countries in the

Middle East and North Africa were getting their sovereignty back and they were threatening

the establishment of an Israeli state. In fact, the United Nation troupes were not even able to

keep away the Palestinian resistance, who did not want a Jewish state on their land. So how

could the forces have resisted to a simultaneous threat from all the surrounding Arab states?17

The first aim of the Israeli country was to be a safe place for Jews who did not

feel any belonging with the society they were living in, where they were pointed out as the

odd spot, where their security and integrity could be threatened by the surrounding

community.18

This has developed into Israel having a regular contact with the Diaspora to

make the move much easier. But also, the fact that Israel was created during a period of time

where the life of the state was endangered by military threats coming from the neighboring

countries increased the establishment of policies to protect the Israeli state. This explains why

security policies are a central part of the Israeli’s foreign policy. The priority of the state was

not only about developing the country but mostly to protect the country against any potential

attack before Israel was even founded and being a functional state. At the same time this

explains how much the state takes any threat with a large degree of seriousness, as well at it

explains the reason why Israel is using a realistic security policy.19

At the same time, the security policy of Israel is also strongly impregnated by

religion. As it is specified in the ”Declaration of the State of Israel”, the notions of “Jewish”

and “Zionist” are central in the identity shaping of the country as a nation-state. Zionism is in

itself divided in two sides: a more realistic and dominative one, and a more liberal side.

2.2) The old Zionism

17 Z. Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy, 2008, p.3 18 R.J. Kilroy Jr, Do fences make good neighbours? An analysis of Israel’s security policy choices, Routledge 2006, p.399 19 B. Reich, Israeli Foreign Policy, I.B. Tauris 2004, p.124


VT2012


19910517-341

The first type of Zionism represents those who believe in a strong armed

military force and power as the only tools to protect the states interests, as a realistic way of

thinking. This policy was implemented in Israel by the former Prime Minister David Ben-

Gurion20

and it is in a bigger image, the same security policy used today by the country.

This is especially noticed with the use of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) which

is a military organization with as mission “To defend the existence, territorial integrity and

sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms

of terrorism which threaten the daily life”21

.This definition of IDF shows how important the

military is in the daily life of Israelis. This is also justified by the different pools made who

show that this is a legitimate way to act as the public polls shows that the majority of the

Israelis support the government when it comes to harder measures to fight against terrorism

and insecurity in the country, by accepting for example security fences22

.

The IDF is the first military force centralized by the Jewish people. This

explains why the institution is important for the inhabitant of Israel as it is working with

national security issues. It is also almost a must for every Israeli to serve in the military forces

as it opens more doors23

, which means the fight for the country’s interest is well rewarded.

This governmental organization has two ways of acting: war of no alternative and the

commitment to the purity of arms24

. This emphasizes that all kind of violence coming from

the state of Israel is done to protect the citizens and the security of the state’s identity to avoid

annihilation of the state without any abuse of the monopoly on violence. The IDF existence

depends on the different types of threats the Israeli state is exposed to. And its legitimacy is

also based on the historical background of the country’s foundation and the circumstances that

built up the military institutions which were needed at that moment.

It is obvious that when organizations such as Hamas does not want to recognize

the sovereignty of the state of Israel and claim to want the building up of an Islamic state on

20 Z. Civcik, The Israeli security policy: Changes and continuities, Middle East Technical University 2004, p.11-12 21 R.J. Kilroy Jr, Do fences make good neighbours? An analysis of Israel’s security policy choices, Routledge 2006, p.403 22

R.J. Kilroy Jr, Do fences make good neighbours? An analysis of Israel’s security policy choices, Routledge 2006, p.400-401 23 M. Sucharov, Security Ethics and the Modern Military: The case of the Israeli Defense Forces, Sage 2005, p.180 24 Ibid.


VT2012


19910517-341

the Israeli territories25

that the feeling of threat increases. In the long run this makes it an

excuse for the IDF to work as it does and to justify its aim.

2.3) The new Zionism within the making of the latest security policy.

The second type of Zionism, which is not as big and really new in comparison,

argues more for a liberal way of dealing with the problems. Treaties and market are

highlighted as solutions to find an end to the issues. For this part of Zionism, the

interdependency is the key that will bring peace into the region. This side has understood the

limits of the military and the difficulties for armed forces to stop and prevent threats. Even

though it has a low grade of influence, liberal Zionism has been able to integrate more and

more of its policies into the Israeli security policy. This has made it possible for Israel to

create different kind of alliances to be able to get help of its superpower allies by asking for a

“liberal interventionism” from their part.26

Liberal interventionism makes it able for other states to get into a conflict as

long as it is in the idea of sharing and inculcate the liberal values to the entered country. It can

be humanitarian aids or military action in reality. Both types are used by Israel. In fact, the

call for democratization and for help in the camp against extremism is a liberal ideal. Israel is

seen as a free27

and democratic nation according to the records, which makes the country a

good example for the other states to follow. Israel has also been using more and more

humanitarian aid28

in the Palestinian territories which can be a way to counter Hamas, which

already integrate an aid policy in their charter.29

Especially now that the Israeli military has

withdrawn its troupes from Gaza, aid supporting the region will in the long term increase the

positivity of the inhabitants towards Israel, instead of having a war where the guerillas, seen

as more merciful, are winning on feeding the hate towards the country of Israel.

Another factor is what has been called the left-Zionism represented by Ariel

Sharon which pushed forward the non-military interventionism policy to increase the

25 Titti Nylander, Fakta om Hamas 18/03/2004, Sveriges Radio (Ekot), 26/12/2011 26

M. Sigournet, Tel-Aviv fait la quête, Jeune Afrique, 18/07/2005 (Artikeln handlar här om Israel som ber om pengar till USA för att förflytta de israeliska nybyggare från Gaza remsan). 27 Freedom House website: http://www.freedomhouse.org 28 Israel’s foreign ministry’s website: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/humanitarianaid/palestinians/ 29 Hamas charter adopted in 1988


VT2012


19910517-341

possibilities and the chances to find a peace treaty which is able to please all the parts.30

This

was concreted by the withdrawals of military armed forces from both Lebanon and the Gaza-

stripe. Though, this political action did not give the expected effects, in the contrary a war in

Lebanon started 6 years later and in Gaza the withdrawal was understood as a victory for the

guerilla groups.

3. Threat and terrorism start war

Threat and terrorism are two different things, even though they are similar

notions that can be confused as one. In fact, terrorism can be seen as a threat towards a state’s

sovereignty. This depends, first on how the security policy is shaped, and then what the main

notions are and at last, what area of protection have the priority. With the understanding of the

earlier described security policy of Israel, it is easier to, first of all, see what the threats are

and to understand them, as well as how this leads to a policy against terrorism shaped as a

war. To complete this thinking it is natural to continue with an example: The war in South

Lebanon in 2006.

3.1) Israeli threat’s perceptions

Israel has a history on the international scene as being a target for terrorism as it

can be seen on the websites of IDF, Israel Security Agency (ISA) and the Foreign Ministry.

They are no traces of thoughts around other threats then terrorism or other state’s possible

attacks against Israel as a legitimate country on the Israeli governmental portals, besides Iran.

But still, there are some different kinds of threats that can be recognized.

“What would be worse would be a widespread, coordinated attack on all our borders.

Perhaps they (Arabs) do not today have the coordination or political will to work together,

but when that day comes, it will be a realization of the nightmare every Jews dreams could

happen.”31

This statement shows the fear of Israel towards an Arab coalition that might

endanger the existence of the Israeli state. It also shows that Israel is aware of its exposition

30R.O. Freedman, Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Security Challenges, Westview Press, 2008, p.50 31 J. E. Mroz, Beyond Security: Private Perceptions Among Arabs and Israelis, New York: Pergamon Press, 1981, p. 50


VT2012


19910517-341

because of its location and the meaning of the part of land the Israeli state is built on, Syria

and Iran being the biggest threats to an eventual stability in the region.32

The threat perception

here is a more realistic one as it is measured on a basis of power balance, as it is clear in the

statement above, if the Arab nations allied to form a common attack the threat will be

materialized as the end of the state of Israel. They will have more power by being bigger in

number of soldiers and able to seizure from all the boarder as the Israeli country is surrounded

by Arab states, as well as Israel is intimidating them with showing its forces.

The establishment of a Palestinian state can also be considered as a threat to

Israel’s being. And this is not actually much Palestine in itself which could be a threat to

Israel, but the use of the country as a bridge by other Arabic countries to destroy the Israeli

state, even though there is a fear of Palestinian leader not being joyful to be neighboring a

Jewish state.33

This actually connects to the previous threat perception as it is also a

perception of power balance where everything has to be done to preserve the country from

falling into pieces. This means a realistic way of thinking.

Terrorism is the most established and known Israeli threat perception. In fact,

this is such an important question and problem for Israel that there are monthly reports on

how much terrorism is going on, how many attacks have been threatening the wellbeing of

Israel and the number of deaths and injured that comes up because of terrorist seizures.34

All this threats have led Israel to start since 2000, a declared war against

terrorism. The Israeli government is using the realistic policy by being offensive to show its

mains goal: to protect the life of its state.

3.2) The war against terrorism

The war against terrorism that Israel is leading since the year 2000, the start of

the second Palestinian Intifada, is what best characterized the Israeli security policy as

terrorism is the country’s main threat.

Offense and frightening with the military superiority has been one of the major

lines of action of the Israeli armies. In fact, terrorism is spread in different places and is not

32 Israel’s foreign ministry website 33 Z. Civcik, The Israeli security policy: Changes and continuities, Middle East Technical University 2004, p.15 34 Israel’s Foreign Ministy website


VT2012


19910517-341

define by a visual army where man-to-man battles can occur. Besides, the policy of

frightening the enemy by showing the country’s military force works as there is no physical

battle. The war in Lebanon in 2006 was difficult mainly because of how much the threat is

spread and that there is no specific geographical location that can be attacked to stop the

threat. The policy drawn by Israel is to have as many workers as possible to fight terrorism as

it is the state’s first priority35

. But this does not seem to give any concrete results as the

terrorist seizures has increased since the beginning of Palestine’s second Intifada in 2000.

As a way to reduce the attacks, Israel uses two solutions. The first solution is to

try taking over the control of the border between the Gaza strip and Egypt, where a lot of

weapons are smuggled in to Hamas. This is a realistic solution, inasmuch as Israel is using the

balance of powers and sees itself as having the upper hand on the situation. The second

solution is by using a fence, like in northern Israel, to make it more difficult for terrorist from

Hezbollah, in Lebanon, to administer the acts they want to commit36

. Israel uses a strategy of

strengthening the border controls, so that the awareness of what is coming into the country

increases . It is also done to make sure that the military forces are ready to act against any

action that has the possibility to harm the Israeli nation.

Terrorism is a threat that all countries have to deal with nowadays, though it has

its limitations. First because of the organizations’ sizes and second, there are financial issues

which obstruct an application of the operations.37

With these thoughts, terrorism is not a real

threat, but the fact of putting terrorism on top of the security agenda is what enforces terrorist

groups to continue to act as their actions are giving results.38

This is just the failing of the

realist policy against terrorism.

3.3) In practice: South Lebanon 200639

On July, 12th 2006, Israeli military forces are attacked by Hezbollah. The

outcome of the action was three dead soldier and two other kidnapped and made prisoners by

35 A. Pendahzur, Israeli Secret Services and the Struggle Against Terrorism, Columbia University Press 2010,

p.137 36

2004 rapport on Terrorism by the Foreign Ministry, p.8 37 A. Pendahzur, Israeli Secret Services and the Struggle Against Terrorism, Columbia University Press 2010,

p.135 38 Ibid 39 For a better general view of the situation, look at Map 1 in the chapter 7 of this essay


VT2012


19910517-341

the organizations. This act increased the insecurity feeling; Hezbollah became a bigger threat

to the Jewish state. Israel asked the United Nation to act in line with the article 51 of the

Charter of the United Nation, which allows acts of violence from a state on another in case of

self-defense. This time, the state of Israel is hoping to get the benediction of the United

Nation to be able to perform a military action on Lebanese soil in order of self-defense. With

this procedure, Israel is able to legitimate the bombing of South Beirut where Hezbollah is

said to be hiding and having its headquarters.40

With its technological superiority, Israeli

government hoped to be able to stop the Hezbollah’s growth in Lebanon, especially in the

southern parts. Unfortunately, too many inhabitants perceived the operation as too expensive

and that the war brought opposite reactions to those expected. In fact, Hezbollah won in

confidence and legitimacy from the Lebanese people.

The war lasted for 34 days. Israel started with bombing areas where Hezbollah

were supposed to be hidden. Later on the country send troupes on Lebanese territory and the

military tried to take over the control of the regions where Hezbollah was most influent:

Southern parts of Lebanon and of Beirut. Unluckily Hezbollah responded to the bombings by

attacking Israel with rackets. From short distance rackets at the begging, that could only

damage the Northern part of the country, to long-distance rackets, which reached big cities

like Haifa. The later phenomenon happened when the guerilla group realized that Israeli’s

biggest targets were not only the organization in itself but also Shiite Muslims, as it is the

main religion of Hezbollah’s adherents. The frustration that came with the uncertainty about

the precise location of Hezbollah made Israel to attack all types of infrastructure that could be

damaged on the way.41

As the war was officially on Lebanese soil, the Lebanese government

tried to end the war, and already two days after the beginning of the war the United Nation’s

Security Council held a meeting to try to take a decision on how a ceasefire could be current

between Hezbollah and Israel. The problem is the support the USA gives Israel restrained any

type of compromise and blocked any possibility for the United Nations to end the war.

Though, one month after the war started, the Security Council decided to make use of the

40 Z. Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy, 2008, p.621 41 C. Sultan, Tragedy in South Lebanon : The Israeli-Hezbollah War Of 2006, Scarletta Press 2008, p.29


VT2012


19910517-341

decision 1701 which calls for a ceasefire. This meant that Israel had to withdraw its troupes

from Lebanon and to pass on to the Lebanese army the mission of disarming Hezbollah.42

The war ended in middle of August 2006, with what is understood as a loss for

Israel. Many argues that the war was too expensive for the Israeli state and that , as

Hezbollah has control of a too big part of Lebanon, the aim of the conflict did not succeed.

At the same time this war, which can be seen as a residue of the Israeli-Lebanese war of the

late 1970’s concerning the boarder, did not clarify the issue between the countries, instead it

has increased the hostility between them. This engenders issue to Israel and the inhabitant

living in the Northern parts which have great need of the Lebanese market. Though, Nahum

Bamea writes in his article in Foreign Policy that neither of the parts have won or lost the war.

For him, and he has a good point in his analysis, the biggest loser is Hezbollah as it has lost a

big amount of lives and a big part of its artillery and therefore the terrorist organization has

probably been extremely weakened.

4. PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah a threat to Israel

PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah are three organizations which have been popular

and known on the international scene by standing against Israel. For many, they are

understood as guerilla organizations with the main goal to destroy Israel. These groups have a

lot of points in common but at the same time they differ a lot from each other, for example the

identity-building and what they want to protect on the first place. What is sure and will be

seen here is that they have a common anger towards Israel and its security policy.

4.1) PLO

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is different from the two other

organizations. In fact, the movement sees itself as the representatives of the Palestinian

nation. Already its charter, adopted in 196443

, is called the Palestinian National Covenant

which is used by the permanent observer mission of Palestine at the United Nations. This

actually means that the PLO not only sees itself as the legitimate representative of the

42 Z. Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy, University of

Michigan Press 2008, p.621 43 B. Soetendorp, Dynamics of Israeli-Palestinian Relations : Theory, History, and Cases, Palgrave Macmillan 2004, p.3


VT2012


19910517-341

Palestinian people but the International scene also understands it as the state-actor of

Palestine.44

The most interesting in reading PLO’s charter is to see the different statement

made to justify the denial of an Israeli state on the older Palestinian territory.45

It is also the

only organization which has been involved in real talks about a peace-process like the Oslo

treaty of 1993who lasted until 2000.46

This peace-process was stopped by a war, Intifada, of

PLO, led at the time by Yasser Arafat. This war had for goal to destroy the Israeli state, as

Arafat said: “We entered Lebanon through a crack in the wall and we ended up controlling

Beirut. We’re entering Palestine through a crack in the wall and we’ll see where it gets us”47

.

The charter is impregnated by a realistic view on the problem. As a resume, it

handles more about how Palestine should regain its lost sovereignty over its older territories

which were progressively owned by Israel. It is almost like the war against Israel is what

defines the Palestinian state, and this explains why it does not fit to have an organization

charter as a national covenant. There is a strong ideal of perpetuating the Palestinian heritage

by for example, certifying a citizenship to all children with a Palestinian father48

.

The need of keeping a unified identity is also made by social structures as it is a

way for Palestine to protect its union around similar traditions and believes. For example the

Article 8 of the charter points out the importance of a Palestinian identity and the weight of

enlisting children from an early age to fight for the Palestinian cause as it is a common goal.

There is also the article 9 which prohibits the fact that ideologies comes before the fight for a

free Palestine. This shows how important the tradition and to have a socially constructed state

is for the Palestinian representative, as it is not an article that has been changed.

With all this said, it stands clear that PLO is undeniably a threat towards Israel

as the war is directed to destroy the country, that is oppressing the Palestinian people. The

44 Website of the permanent observer mission of Palestine (http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363) 45

Article 1 & 2 of the Palestinian National Covenant adopted in 1964 46 R.O. Freedman, Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Security Challenges, Westview Press, 2008. p 176 47 Ibid 48 Article 5 & 6 of the Palestinian National Covenant adopted in 1964


VT2012


19910517-341

international influence also has a big role in the making of the policies between the countries

and on how the peace treaties are

PLO’s influence has been decreasing in the past decade49

and Hamas has been

there to take over the population. They have some similarities, the most remarkable one being

the utilization of the world Zionism to designate Israel in a pejorative way, even though it is

PLO who has more tendencies to call the Israeli State with its given name50

.

4.2) Hamas

Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, was created in 1988

with the intention to unify a Palestinian Islamic resistance and to regain the lost Palestinian

territories.51

It is a network inside the Muslim brotherhood52

. In its constitution Hamas shows

hostility towards Israel by calling the settlement of the country for a “Zionist invasion”53

. For

them there is a kind of bipolar and imperialistic way to look at the world. This means that

Hamas sees the world divided in two: their partisans and the Zionist followers, with the

Zionists being the hegemon with a worldwide power. The problem is that organization does

not take in consideration the complexity of international relations and the different actors such

as economic treaties and interdependency between different states. It also states that “Israel

will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”54

The Charter of Hamas reveals a lot about there will and their vision for the

Middle East. In fact their war is not limited to Palestine, even though it is a Palestinian section

of the Muslim Brotherhood. The armed group states that for the war “today it is Palestine and

tomorrow it may be another country or other countries.”55

Hamas means here that the ideals

they are fighting for is broad and they have a message that has to reach the whole world.

In the article 36 of the charter the Islamic Resistance Movement states that it is

an armed force which fights against oppressor with arms to give freedom to the Palestinian

49 R.O. Freedman, Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Security Challenges, Westview Press, 2008. p 176 50 Palestinian National Covenant adopted in 1964 51

Ibid 52 Article 2 of Hamas charter adopted in 1988 53 Article 7 of Hamas charter adopted in 1988 54 Statement of Hamas charter adopted in 1988 55 Article 32 of Hamas charter adopted in 1988


VT2012


19910517-341

people. In this matter they can be integrated in the United States definition of terrorism as

Hamas is an armed non-state actor which uses clandestine manors to gain influence. The last

criterion to define a group for terrorist is well accomplished by Hamas. The Islamic

Resistance Movement is not just a guerilla organization; it is also a political party. The 2006

elections where the organization won the majority of the seats to the Palestinian parliament

shows the increasing influence of Hamas. This political legitimacy has made them into one of

the most influent organized forces in Palestine. And their aid-program just makes Hamas

more popular. In fact, there charter is characterized with a solidarity movement that is central

in their fight against Israel and Zionism56

.

Though, the organization is based on three major gathering points: Islam as a

religion, the Arab traditions and the rally of one people, the Palestinian one.57

These social

structures are what rally and unite Hamas and its vision of a free Palestinian state. What can

be seen here is that the organization is in reality build with a constructivist thought, to gather

people with the same social institution and way of thinking to one and only organization. The

joining of the movement can be done only if the adherent has the same believing and the same

ideas on how a society is built.

Hamas is clearly and undoubtedly a threat for Israel with it vision on the Middle

East as a Muslim region, on the existence of only a Palestinian regime on what is called the

“Holy land” , the description of the organization itself as a force of soldiers and the growing

influence of the Islamic Resistance Movement. But the problem of Israel with Hamas is that

the organization is well organized in the meaning of not being staying in the same place and

being well scattered through the Palestinian territories as Gaza and the West Bank.

4.3) Hezbollah

Hezbollah was created in the 1980’s as a civil measure against a new attack of

Israel on Lebanese soil, and also to preserve the boarders which were the matter of the 1970’s

conflict between Lebanon and Israel. Already at the end of the war, the organization showed

up its military forces. Hezbollah even more present after the withdrawal of the Israeli troupes

56 Article 20 & 21 of Hamas charter adopted in 1988 57 Article 14 of Hamas charted adopted in 1988


VT2012


19910517-341

in 2000, when it decided to stand on the “blue” border58

to protect the local population from a

possible second invasion of Lebanon by Israel.59

Since the 1990’s it has been a political party in Lebanon with a declared Shiite Islamic

background. And the organization has been taking a more important role in the making of the

foreign policy of Lebanon not only with the requirements on Israel to release Lebanese war

prisoners, but also with the statement made that the territories around Shab’a Farm belongs to

Lebanon.60

This is the way Hezbollah has been winning legitimacy from the Lebanese people,

who can identify themselves and join the ideas and wills that the party has been putting

forward toward Israel. The fact that it has a representation in the Lebanese National

Parliament and have two minister post gives Hezbollah a political legitimacy to talk for the

people, but there is also the fact that Lebanese citizens are actually adhering the movement

and are fighting with arms together with the organization that increases the legitimacy and its

sovereignty to act as a representative of the Lebanese people. It gets also harder for the Israeli

state to differentiate Hezbollah from the Lebanese state61

.

The group has members all over the world, helping with the party’s ideals and goal of

weakening Israel. For examples there are the bombing of the Israeli embassies of Buenos

Aires and London, in respectively 1992 and 1994. These examples give a greater insecurity to

the Israeli state and make it even more difficult to localize the threats to specific places.

Hezbollah is not the state of Lebanon and therefor has Israel more difficulties to actually

pressure the Lebanese state for acting and stopping the oppression62

.

All of this criteria implements Hezbollah in the definitions of a terrorist organization. The

organization can actually be compared to Hamas and to PLO as it has almost the same ideas.

The big difference is the identity of the organizations, as the two first are here to protect the

Palestinian rights while the last one is concentrated on Lebanon and the political relations

between Lebanon and Israel. Hezbollah, which in Arabic literally means the party of God.

The organization, already by its name, points out its identity and its policy as based on

58

Cf Map 1 59 Y. Ronen, Israel, Hizbollah, and the Second Lebanon War, 2007, s.365-366 60 Ibid 61 Ibid 62 P. Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge 2008, s.75


VT2012


19910517-341

religion. At the same time as they adherents and front figure proudly define it as a reflecting

image of Southern Lebanon with the Shiite believes.

5. Conclusion

This essay has been describing first the security policy of Israel. From a

historical point of view has Israel legitimacy to feel threatened as the country has been

founded during a severely troubled period of time where it was insecure for the Israeli state to

declare itself as an existing state with a geographical territory. It was a period of war and

intense conflict for the Israelis. Where it has been clearly showed that even if more liberal

perspectives on how policies should be applied the old fashioned Zionism is the followed

policy. And this ideology has a realist model on international politics and relations. It is a

strong point for Israel to show the upper hand with their military forces to intimidate the

opponents.

Secondly, the essay give an analysis of what type of threats the Israeli state feel

threatened by and from what kind of actors, as well as their way of finding a solution to the

problem. The Lebanon war in 2006 is a great example on what a realistic way of solving gives

for result. What comes forward here is the obsession-like of the Israeli policy when it comes

to threat from terrorist groups. What comes forward in the analysis is that a security policy

which is inspired by realism is not the optimal way to fight against the new types of threat

which are related and impregnated by terrorism. The war against Hezbollah in Lebanon is the

perfect example to show that a usual war is not enough to fight against terrorism. Because

these organizations have a special way to deal with their goals than state-actors do, Osama

Ben Laden did a pretty good description of this way of working:

”Due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy

forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e. using fast-moving,

light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other words, to initiate a

guerilla war where, the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part

in it.”


VT2012


19910517-341

Osama Ben Laden, 199663

In the third place, the essay has been looking at the three major threats to Israel

and trying to analyze in which way those organizations are a threat toward the Israeli state. In

this part of the essay has it been clear that the notion of threat from Israel is legitimate in

consideration of what is written in the charter of PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah. What has also

come forward here is the fact that all of these organizations base their fight and recruit their

members and soldiers by using socially constructed cultural factor which are building identity.

This makes clearer that the problem cannot be solved by the actual security policy of Israel. In

fact there need something to refresh and to let them be able to stop the violence against the

Jewish people because the methods used today are neither efficient nor appropriated.

The problems that this essay wants to bring forward are that the instability in the

region has been that big because of the way the countries handle with the problems. The

solutions are not in line for the problems, and the worrying background of Israel’s foundation

is a brake for any kind of changes in the Middle-East. The conflicts about the Israeli boarders

and the fight over the territories have their roots in realism where the thinking is centered on

power, and on the possibilities for the actor to be more powerful. Unfortunately, as it has been

seen in the essay, for the Middle-Eastern countries, this is not the optimal way of fighting and

new ways must be found.

The essay shows repeatedly how the structures play a big role in the relation

between threat and security issues. Both parts, Israel on one hand and PLO, Hamas and

Hezbollah on the other, have built their policies around their religious and traditional believes.

This will at the end lead the thoughts to identity and its symbol. It will also persuade that

identity is playing a key role in the conflict and might give the answer to why the Israeli

efforts to stop terrorism have not given any drastic results yet.

The problems that have been pushed forward here are an image of nowadays

perception of threat. This war against terrorism might be new but it is spread all over the

world and has, especially since the September, 11th

2001, been haunting the everyday life of

the World’s citizens. The police controls of airports, the research after any trace of criminality

or even the warnings against danger has increased since that day for more than 10 years ago.

63 P. Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge 2008, s.66


VT2012


19910517-341

The security of the countries has become a more prominent goal for the states. This actually

grows questions and thoughts on the rightness and the legitimacy of all these anti-terrorist

actions even when it affects the integrity of the citizens. The governments are acting with a

more realist thinking; with as main goal the protection of the state from any external harm,

just as Israel protects its territory by every single mean. This phenomenon brings up a

questioning of how far a state can legitimate its actions in the protection of the country’s inner

security. Which is more important: Human rights or National Security?


VT2012


19910517-341

6. Map

Map 1: Israel, the Palestinian territories and the Israeli-Lebanese border conflict.

Taken from http://awarecommunities.org on the 3/12/2012


VT2012


19910517-341

7. Sources

Books:

Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and

Foreign Policy, University of Michigan Press 2008

Mira Sucharov, Security Ethics and the Modern Military: The case of the Israeli

Defense Forces, Sage 2005

Cathy Sultan, Tragedy in South Lebanon : The Israeli-Hezbollah War Of 2006,

Scarletta Press 2008

Ben Soetendorp, Dynamics of Israeli-Palestinian Relations : Theory, History, and

Cases, Palgrave Macmillan 2004

Robert Owen Freedman, Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and

Security Challenges, Westview Press, 2008

Peter Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge 2008

John Edwin Mroz, Beyond Security: Private Perceptions Among Arabs and Israelis,

New York: Pergamon Press, 1981

Jakob Gustavsson & Jonas Tallberg, Internationella relationer, Studentlitteratur 2008

Peter Esaiasson, Mikael Gilljam, Henrik Oscarsson, Lena Wängnerud,

Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad (3rd edition),

Nordstedts Juridik 2007

Articles:

Titti Nylander, Fakta om Hamas 18/03/2004, Sveriges Radio (Ekot), 26/12/2011

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=386375

Bernard Reich, Israeli Foreign Policy, I.B. Tauris 2004, p.124

Zeynep Civcik, The Israeli security policy: Changes and continuities, Middle East

Technical University 2004

Muriel Sigournet, Tel-Aviv fait la quête 18/07/2005, Jeune Afrique , 16/05/2011

Yael Ronen, Israel, Hizbollah, and the Second Lebanon War, 2007

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=386375


VT2012


19910517-341

Richard J. Kilroy Jr, Do fences make good neighbours? An analysis of Israel’s

security policy choices, Routledge 2006

Websites:

A site collecting maps from different site: http://awarecommunities.org

Website of the permanent observer mission of Palestine:

http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

IDF’s website: http://www.idf.il/english/

ISA’s website: http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/

Israel’s foreign ministry website: http://www.mfa.gov.il

Speeches:

Max Weber, Politic as a vocation, 28/01/1919 in Munich

Charters:

The Palestinian National Covenant adopted in 1964

Hamas charter adopted in 1988

http://awarecommunities.org/

http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

http://www.idf.il/english/

http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/

http://www.mfa.gov.il/

Date post:	12-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Realism and new threats: An analysis of Israel’s …548166/FULLTEXT01.pdfRealism and new threats:...

Documents